Talk:Introduction to evolution
I obviously disagree strenuously with the tag that has been placed on this article to move this to evolution. This guy is some template happy character it seems. I complained on his talk page but I have obtained no reply.--Filll 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I see little to salvage in the article as it now stands.GetAgrippa 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please edit away to your heart's content. Let's make this accurate but still accessible, if possible.--Filll 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Needed
- We need pictures here. Something simple please and not too frightening.
- I would like to change the blue information box at the top of the article to a vertical blue information box down the right hand side of the article if possible--Filll 04:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to put
in this article but it did not work properly for some reason.--Filll 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Start with the theory?
I have just redone the opening, to start with a brief statement of the theory (largely cut and pasted from an earlier version). I think this is a good idea, even though the essential points are restated in the vertical box at the right. The bullet list can develop into a slightly longer and fuller version, while perhaps the box can be shortened further - two different ways of conveying the essential facts, for people with different ways of absorbing information. Also - I moved the stuff about wings down to join the hands because (a) it is another example of adaptive radiation and (b) I don't think it's a good idea to jump straight into a specific example like that, which perhaps gives too much of an impression that this is all that evolution is about. Maybe now a good idea to delete either the hands or the wings and leave just one example. Snalwibma 09:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I am disappointed to see that WAS 4.250 has simply reverted my changes without discussion. OK - some of it is wrong. But what about the principle? I still feel the present opening is quite inadequate, jumping straight into a specific example (which is in effect made redundant lower down the page) without setting out the basic idea. Snalwibma 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article requires complete revision, knee-jerk reversal at this stage are not productive. We almost need to put a disclaimer across the top "UNDER CONSTRUCTION". Try you edits again. This can work if we think in terms of informative, accurate, yet minimize the enormous amount of supporting details that are problematic in the Main article. Perhaps first you could outline the major topics for the article that are relevant to understanding evolution. Then discussion over the outline could follow. Then the actually text can be composed, with readability in mind. Don't throw in the towel .... yet! --Random Replicator 12:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Even the English on this version is stilted, because in Simple Wikipedia we are encouraged to write somewhat stilted English to try to aim for an article which only uses about 850 words of Basic English. However, for Wikipedia itself I think we can at least make sure the English is readable, but still keep it simple with less technical terms.--Filll 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked at what Snalwibma had done. I think it was a distinct improvement over this. I think rather than just revert mindlessly, we should edit the material we have here. It needs to grow organically. If some of what was added was not exactly correct, then it needs to be edited, not reverted!!--Filll 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take it off my watchlist and let you guys proceed as you see fit. WAS 4.250 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's revert this to Snalwimba's version and let it evolve in a hopefully constructive direction.--Filll 15:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I like to critique more than write.... but would this be a suitable start as an intro? --Random Replicator 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Its hard to encapsulate Evolution in a short, readable, intro!!!! So be kind.
In a general way, evolution is described as the changes that have transformed life from its earliest origins into the diverse forms of life represented today. More specifically, the Scientific Theory of Evolution states that all living things share, at some point in their evolutionary history, a common ancestor. Evolution depicts life as a tree, with many branches arising from a single trunk. The tips of the branches represent present day life forms. Each fork in the branch represents ancestors common to all lines arising after the split.
Insert Image of Tree Here!!!!
The idea of common ancestry has its roots in the Darwinian Revolution. Charles Darwin, famous for his theory of natural selection, saw unity in life, with all living things related or descending from a common ancestor. Darwin describes these events as “descent with modification”. Darwin based his ideas of common ancestry on the principals of natural selection.
Natural Selection::::::::::::::::::::::::::
All common knowledge, so citations not required. Not familar with the rules and lack the skills to actually edit the article itself ... so this as far as I know to go with it.
Readability score of 46 or 10th grade level. --Random Replicator 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I like it. Fantastic.--Filll 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
A quick look gave these. I hope there are better ones but this is all i could find for now. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  
|
 
|
- Those look good to me. To brighten it up a bit so it is not to dreary looking.--Filll 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping we could insert a evolutionary tree after discusion on the branches of life... there is one in the wiki photovault in which the copyright is expired. Link->
[1]
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pedigree_of_man_%28Haeckel_1874%29.jpg){kind=link}
I have no clue how to insert or resize but if someone wants to try to insert it if appropriate. --Random Replicator 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)